3 ms·

There are no similarities whatsoever, other than them having opinions on a new tech that affects their field. > nothing stops mathematicians from doing both o

There are no similarities whatsoever, other than them having opinions on a new tech that affects their field. > nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things Actually yes, and they explain that pretty clearly in the letter. These problems have been used as "goals" not because the solutions are necessarily worth it, but because they set a clear direction whose process would probably yield very useful theories, and also more conjectures and problems. If the goals get solved by AI models that do not generate comprehension, then the direction gets less clear, it's harder to collaborate and get funding (think what would be easier, to get funding to try and solve Navier-Stokes or to try and understand an already proven Navier-Stokes?), and we get less open problems to work on.

bonoboTP 22d ago
> get funding It all comes down to this. Yes, they will need to give a good and convincing argument to the taxpayer. And at the end of the day, if the circumstances change, and you're unsuccessful in making your case in your plead, the taxpayer and their representatives may not want to keep the same level of funding and instead put that money to use elsewhere. So make a good argument why your job is still worth that cash under the new circumstances. The argument can appeal to aesthetics and art and philosophy and a kind of feeling of religious elegance and so on, it's fine. I can't say how well that will work, but it's worth a try. Taxes also fund theology and other pursuits with no tie to cold hard engineering etc. But that level of funding is not the same as for math currently. That gap may shrink.
- gjulianm 21d ago
  I don’t get the argument you are making. If you want to reduce funding for mathematics research, argue for that. But wanting to make getting funding and coordination and collaboration harder in exchange for nothing other than PR for AI labs does not make sense
  - bonoboTP 21d ago
    Is it just PR? Okay then the useful math can be done by AI and we can leave aesthetic math to human academics who will ascetically refrain from using AI and if anyone of them submits a paper and it turns out they used computers they will be treated like WADA treats Olympians on steroids or chess players with a vibrator up their ass telling them what move to take. But again the taxpayer may not foot the bill for this endeavor as much as they did while thinking it may be useful for technology, science and engineering innovation.
    - gjulianm 21d ago
      But did you read the letter, or are you familiar with the people signing it? Several things tell me you didn’t: - The useful part of math is the tools, the understanding and the theories. Knowing whether the result is true or not is usually not useful. Imagine an AI that just says “cancer can be cured” but doesn’t say how: that’s what the letter is criticizing. - Terry Tao is one of the biggest proponents of AI use in math. He’s been for quite some time and he shares a lot on his blog. Seriously, it seems like you’re arguing about some idea you have in your head and you’re not making the effort to actually understand anything about this letter.
      - bonoboTP 21d ago
        AI won't just say cancer can be cured without saying how. Not sure where you got this from. AI will be superhuman at writing the executive summary at any prerequisite knowledge level. These people are concerned about internal community dynamics like tenure, chairs, PhDs, grad students, the whole ecosystem, papers, hiring, conferences, journals etc. But the wider population doesn't care about this and academics don't understand that nobody cares about this outside their bubble. As Feynman said, "mathematicians can research what they please. If you want something else, you work it out yourself" (not verbatim). Indeed, now people can do this with AI and it makes mathematicians salty that they will have less prestige.
        gjulianm 21d ago
        > AI won't just say cancer can be cured without saying how. It was an example, an analogy to argue that answering a question might not be as important as how it arrives to that question. Hence the “imagine”. > These people are concerned about internal community dynamics like tenure, chairs, PhDs, grad students, the whole ecosystem, papers, hiring, conferences, journals etc. You just described most of the parts of the mathematical community. > But the wider population doesn't care about this and academics don't understand that nobody cares about this outside their bubble. I don’t care about the logistic system and yet I want my food to be in the market. If the population at large wants to use mathematics they will have to find a way to support a mathematical community. Now, if you don’t want mathematics, again, go argue about that. > Indeed, now people can do this with AI and it makes mathematicians salty that they will have less prestige. Except that they can’t. I do not know how many more times we need to explain that “answering questions” is not what mathematics is about. That if that path is followed, then mathematics will suffer as a result and the pace of mathematical development will slow down. Honestly, I think it would be better for you to really stop attributing the arguments of mathematicians that are by no means anti AI to saltiness or other childish feelings. Try to be more humble and try to find what kind of ideas they might hold for them to argue this letter. Of course, that requires reading the letter and trying to understand it.

bonoboTP 22d ago

> get funding It all comes down to this. Yes, they will need to give a good and convincing argument to the taxpayer. And at the end of the day, if the circumstances change, and you're unsuccessful in making your case in your plead, the taxpayer and their representatives may not want to keep the same level of funding and instead put that money to use elsewhere. So make a good argument why your job is still worth that cash under the new circumstances. The argument can appeal to aesthetics and art and philosophy and a kind of feeling of religious elegance and so on, it's fine. I can't say how well that will work, but it's worth a try. Taxes also fund theology and other pursuits with no tie to cold hard engineering etc. But that level of funding is not the same as for math currently. That gap may shrink.

gjulianm 21d ago
I don’t get the argument you are making. If you want to reduce funding for mathematics research, argue for that. But wanting to make getting funding and coordination and collaboration harder in exchange for nothing other than PR for AI labs does not make sense
- bonoboTP 21d ago
  Is it just PR? Okay then the useful math can be done by AI and we can leave aesthetic math to human academics who will ascetically refrain from using AI and if anyone of them submits a paper and it turns out they used computers they will be treated like WADA treats Olympians on steroids or chess players with a vibrator up their ass telling them what move to take. But again the taxpayer may not foot the bill for this endeavor as much as they did while thinking it may be useful for technology, science and engineering innovation.
  - gjulianm 21d ago
    But did you read the letter, or are you familiar with the people signing it? Several things tell me you didn’t: - The useful part of math is the tools, the understanding and the theories. Knowing whether the result is true or not is usually not useful. Imagine an AI that just says “cancer can be cured” but doesn’t say how: that’s what the letter is criticizing. - Terry Tao is one of the biggest proponents of AI use in math. He’s been for quite some time and he shares a lot on his blog. Seriously, it seems like you’re arguing about some idea you have in your head and you’re not making the effort to actually understand anything about this letter.
    - bonoboTP 21d ago
      AI won't just say cancer can be cured without saying how. Not sure where you got this from. AI will be superhuman at writing the executive summary at any prerequisite knowledge level. These people are concerned about internal community dynamics like tenure, chairs, PhDs, grad students, the whole ecosystem, papers, hiring, conferences, journals etc. But the wider population doesn't care about this and academics don't understand that nobody cares about this outside their bubble. As Feynman said, "mathematicians can research what they please. If you want something else, you work it out yourself" (not verbatim). Indeed, now people can do this with AI and it makes mathematicians salty that they will have less prestige.
      - gjulianm 21d ago
        > AI won't just say cancer can be cured without saying how. It was an example, an analogy to argue that answering a question might not be as important as how it arrives to that question. Hence the “imagine”. > These people are concerned about internal community dynamics like tenure, chairs, PhDs, grad students, the whole ecosystem, papers, hiring, conferences, journals etc. You just described most of the parts of the mathematical community. > But the wider population doesn't care about this and academics don't understand that nobody cares about this outside their bubble. I don’t care about the logistic system and yet I want my food to be in the market. If the population at large wants to use mathematics they will have to find a way to support a mathematical community. Now, if you don’t want mathematics, again, go argue about that. > Indeed, now people can do this with AI and it makes mathematicians salty that they will have less prestige. Except that they can’t. I do not know how many more times we need to explain that “answering questions” is not what mathematics is about. That if that path is followed, then mathematics will suffer as a result and the pace of mathematical development will slow down. Honestly, I think it would be better for you to really stop attributing the arguments of mathematicians that are by no means anti AI to saltiness or other childish feelings. Try to be more humble and try to find what kind of ideas they might hold for them to argue this letter. Of course, that requires reading the letter and trying to understand it.